Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Saving an honourable estate from a dishonourable prime minister

From Brother Ivo:

There are a variety of reasons to oppose the Bill currently before Parliament relating to gay marriage. In this post I am confining myself to one aspect and one only.

Some people have a genuine concern that this change to the institution of marriage will not be the last. The vehicle for such an extension would not be Parliament, but rather the Human Rights Act, which operates on a very simple incremental basis: ‘If X is accepted, why not Y?’; ‘If Y is approved, how can you fairly exclude Z?’. So it continues.

Accordingly, there is a legitimate fear that activist judges may reason that if the innovation that is gay marriage can be established on the premise ‘Why should they not if they love each other?’ or ‘How can we fairly discriminate against others such as bisexuals, polygamists or polyandrists?’

Polygamy alone has a much longer, and, indeed, biblical and anthropological history than gay marriage. Once you add in the complexities of ‘equality’, it is plain that once multiple definitions and innovations begin, it becomes increasingly difficult to draw any defensible line. Marriage becomes institutionally incoherent and far removed from its basis in countless societies as a context in which to bring up children. It has always been about this and not about personal lifestyle choice.

The European Court of Human Rights has already considered and ruled that the differentiation between gay civil partnership and heterosexual marriage is a lawful distinction and within what is known as the ‘margin of appreciation’ for any member state.

The ‘margin of appreciation’ can best be viewed as the tolerated differences which different countries may choose to adopt. Put colloquially, it is ‘wiggle room’. Spain may accept gay marriage but Italy may reject. The Court will accept such differences as reasonable acceptable and defensible between member states, but once the boundary is shifted within one state it is by no means certain that the momentum for change could be halted internally as judges exploit that momentum through their own prejudices.

Whether that established defence for marriage would withstand a determined attack by those seeking to ‘expand the envelope’ is by no means clear under the Bill as currently drawn. Extensions of the definition beyond gay marriage have not yet occurred in countries that have legislated for it. However, it may be that the campaigning groups in the UK are more passionate about this than those in other European countries.

Once, it was possible to assume that no reasonable judge would countenance a destruction of the institution of marriage, but that is no longer a safe assumption. In particular, the sole female Supreme Court judge, Lady Brenda Hale, has been keen to develop a line of jurisprudence, blurring the distinction between the married and the unmarried by imposing marriage-type obligations on those who have chosen not to be married. When one acquires de facto marriage rights simply through co-habitation – as she has propounded – it is difficult to see how marriage has a distinctive identity.

Rather more specifically, consider her remarks from 1980 which reveal an alarming attitude towards the protection of a traditional understanding of marriage – with or without gay people n the nominal ‘big tent’:

‘Logically we have already reached the point at which we should no longer be considering which marital remedies should be extended to the unmarried, but whether the institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose at all.’

Such revolutionary attitudes towards marriage have proved no inhibition to her progress to the highest echelons of the Judiciary. Far from being ‘the unthinkable’ among those empowered to strike down the will of the people's representative, our unelected and unaccountable judges have plainly demonstrated the power and the inclination to supplant their minority views for those of the ordinary people of this country who still, to a great degree, believe that marriage is ‘an honourable estate’ as His Grace the Archbishop has so eloquently put it in the Marriage Service.

If we think it is, and even our somewhat devious Prime Minister still says that it is, then it is worth defending from his newly-made progressive friends and allies, not least in the Judiciary.

Unfortunately, the Bill before Parliament cannot be said to have the degree of certainty required. It can, however, be made stronger by two additions.

Brother Ivo is a simple man and no parliamentary draftsman, but he is sure that these safeguards can be practically enshrined.

First, the Government should legislate to indemnify any religious institution or private individual against the legal costs, damages or financial consequences of any extension of the definition of marriage, beyond that contained within the Bill.

Second, the Government should provide that ‘Upon any court accepting jurisdiction for any claim touching the definition of marriage based upon either the Equalities Act or the European Convention on Human Rights, both shall be repealed forthwith and the UK shall withdraw from the jurisdiction of that court’.

We are assured by the proponents of this Bill that our fears will not come to pass. It is therefore asking little of them or our activist judges to offer these assurances, which would constitute something precious, or alert of a value at stake, should they be tempted to ‘push the boundaries’ that little bit further, as progressives tend to do. It is as much in their nature as the defence of marriage is in that of Christian Conservatives.

The proposal is intellectually more modest than it sounds. It asks the progressive movement to ensure that it has ‘some skin in the game’, as our friends in the USA say. Put more elegantly, it balances the risks: the progressives secure their marriage for gay people; the less cavalier secure a stronger defensive position for marriage by having that line in the sand which is the ‘margin of appreciation’ replaced – with an electrified fence.

We are assured by the proponents of this Bill that our fears will not come to pass.

Our politicians would never lie to us would they? They are as trustworthy as Chis Huhne. Why on earth should we believe expense account cheats, adulterers etc., or the sort of person who gave a "cast iron promise" to hold a referendum on the EU before the last election?

I am, of course, just scratching the surface. It would be possible to write pages and pages about why we should not trust politicians.

We are assured by the proponents of this bill that our fears will not come to pass.

Brother this sounds familiar, Ah yes! "You will not surely die" the Serpent said to the Woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Moral of this story; Don't trust snakes, don't listen to snakes & don't act on their advice. Once bitten - you die.

Marriage through the state will soon have no significance. It is time for genuine Christians to reinvent this sacrament, making it only available to regular worshipping members, who may or may not choose to be married by the state as well. This will require the disestablishment of the C of E of course but better to protect the purity of doctrine and practice than be the servant of a post-Christian state. There food for thought !

John Knox's lovechild said...Cameron is not at the Commons debate, it seems.

This man falls further in my estimation.

I wonder if Chris Huhne is as the debate or whether his resignation from parliament was with immediate effect?

I hope that a full list of all MPs who vote for and against the motion will be published, together with all the abstainers, many of whom will be cowards who do not agree with the bill but lack the courage of their convictions.

The list should be published on the Internet where it can be easily found so that come the next general election voters can check how their MPs voted and hold them to account.

Perhaps His Grace could publish such a list on his blog and then re-publish it about a week before the next general election.

It is amazing how many Conservative MP's are opposed to this measure - why do they allow Cameron and his elite Notting Hill cronies to continue in power? David Lammy was out of order implying opponents are the same as a belief in white supremacy; Sarah Wollaston was talking about Alan Turning- not sure why as that is irrelevant to the debate - many interesting speeches from the DUP MPs.

Some ignoramus on BBC Radio 5 said gay marriage is the missing part of ‘equality’ legislation, and that it will now be complete. He couldn’t be more damn wrong about that ! Far from being the last piece, it will cement the front row. There is so much more to come.

Everybody familiar with the term ‘Same Sex Marriage’ ? Good, because shortly you won’t be seeing that term again. Or for that matter ‘Traditional Marriage’ or ‘Ordinary Marriage’ or ‘Heterosexual Marriage’ or ANY qualification to describe marriage in what ever way to suggest there is anything other than just ‘Marriage’. The gay organisations will see to that. They already hand out awards and badges to ‘LGBT compliant’ organisations, AND charge them a membership fee for the privilege ! These baubles are essential apparently for PR conscious boards. Can’t go around upsetting anybody you know !

So, we ask ourselves why so particular. Well, it’s all to do with the overall plan, or ‘Gay Agenda’ if you will. The agenda, you will not be surprised to know, is keen to extreme on ‘educating’ the next generation. Ironically, the very sons and daughters they are unable to have themselves, save for the turkey baster and surrogate route. (…Surrogate here being a handy term to replace prostitute – a woman who gives for a consideration, namely bank notes…)

We are now in the classroom, and we find there is only talk of marriage. And the reason for marriage will be self gratification for you and your partner. Note, not even mention of ‘be they of same gender or not’. It is even possible, God help us, that The Gay will so word this that mention of children will disappear altogether. Can you imagine that ! A talk on marriage and no mention of children. Why ?

Well, we don’t want to upset the tiny number of children who are somewhat confused about themselves. They may have confidence issues, they might even turn out to be homosexual, but on no account are they to be upset by the idea that it might be expected of them to want children of their own one day. That will infringe their Human Rights, somewhow…

The Inspector is loathe to bore those who read his posts, so that’s enough to consider this time. Next time, for your edification, we will discuss how The Gay will achieve all this. And pretty it ain’t…

"First, the Government should legislate to indemnify any religious institution or private individual against the legal costs, damages or financial consequences of any extension of the definition of marriage, beyond that contained within the Bill.

Second, the Government should provide that ‘Upon any court accepting jurisdiction for any claim touching the definition of marriage based upon either the Equalities Act or the European Convention on Human Rights, both shall be repealed forthwith and the UK shall withdraw from the jurisdiction of that court"

Excellent solution, Brother Ivo.

Sadly not one that I can see coming out of Westminster, short of pigs flying.

The example of Jesus was not one of exclusivity; Look at the loaves and fishes, look at the parable of the rich man's feast - when nobody came he threw open the doors, sent his servants out to the highways and byways instructing them " make them come in."

The only person promised paradise by Jesus was the thief on the cross who was singularly outside of any religious influence until that point.

What is striking is the indescriminate promiscuous generosity of the teaching; it is hard to reconcile this teaching with the closeted communities of the self proclaimed "saved"

We are discussing whether Churches should be more open in their welcome or stringent in their admission policies. In this context, the " make them come in" model of the Gospel, the free sharing of the loaves and fishes ( with more to spare) and the thief doing so little to be saved speaks to me of our need to bring the lost to the encounter with Jesus and let him do the rest.

I like Bishop Nick Baines idea that Church is where people come to find that they have been found by God.

It is not for me to set a harsh admissions policy to obstruct that journey of faith. We must not allow ourselves to become the stumbling blocks .

Yes it was……. only through Jesus can we find salvation. Only by Jesus are we made right with God.

Jesus never spoke of hell...... So we are all saved.... so why write a piece on the dangers of homosexual marriage if we are as you say, accepted whatever we believe?

Sodom etc did not happen?

If you don't like Paul how about Psalm 103 ?

13 As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him;14 for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.15 The life of mortals is like grass, they flourish like a flower of the field;16 the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more.17 But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear him, and his righteousness with their children’s children –18 with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.19 The Lord has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all.20 Praise the Lord, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word.21 Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will.22 Praise the Lord, all his works everywhere in his dominion.

Praise the Lord, my soul.

Or is it... Do what you want mate.. God doesn't care whether your heart loves him or not.

Do you have children brother? Yes you guard their hearts. That is why most parents are scared to death of the message of the links that I posted above and soon to be/are already "normal" in schools.

Now, don’t get the Inspector wrong here. It’s not the outcome which disgusts him so much, but that on this 5th day of February, in the Lord’s year of 2013, we finally have proof the Conservative party has vacated the centre right ground.

As a result, this man will still attend elections, but he will be voting for the only worthwhile centre right party left – UKIP. If there is no UKIP, he will spoil his paper. This is a promise made and will be kept.

Furthermore, he hopes the rump of Conservative MPs who DID oppose, seriously consider taking the UKIP whip.

Fellows. The battle is not over. This bill still has to negotiate the Lords. Meanwhile, we must brace ourselves for organised homosexuality’s response to today. Remember this, they have their eyes set on the emerging generations presently in education. It will be a vicious time, but for the sake of our children and grand children, and their children as yet unborn, we MUST prevail...

Except:I like Bishop Nick Baines idea that Church is where people come to find that they have been found by God. Only if Baines himself agrees with the interpretation, or if he has approved the membership, I bet!

Today, I heard from an American friend who had recently visited London. "Horrible," he said. "Decadent, dirty, no longer recognisable as English."

One way and another I guess we can kiss the tourist trade goodbye, then. As well as most of our other trade -- well, whatever of it's left to a nation that nurtures no knowledge or skills and produces nothing.

Well, at least the first item you mentioned seems to be quite realistic about the dangers of gay sex. It would make any normal person (and I use the word "normal" deliberately) completely off the idea.

However, that is obviously not the intention behind either of those resources. Both try to promote the idea of anal sex, or sodomy, as normal.

Sister(?) Non mouse,Whilst I am with you in that the Church is normally the fellowship rather than the building, in this specific instance Bishop Nick seemed to be speaking in terms of the sacred space. In that way I think you might be happier with his approach. When people are in sacred space they can find themselves open to the God of surprises who makes himself known and draws them closer to Him.

I do respect Saint Paul and his amazing wide ranging ministry, but we must not conflate him with the mind of God. Paul had - and knew -his faults!

In this context do not forget that Paul may not have known of the thief on the cross, which is a challenging model as there is nothing we know of him to explain to human hearts how he was rewarded by Christ for seemingly so little.

What part of Paul's teaching on that which was needful for salvation applied to the thief?

I suggest that the answer to this is obvious: Paul could no more explainJesus reaching out to the thief than he could explain Jesus choice of him. If anything Paul was even less deserving than the thief ( who had never persecuted Christ's followers) - and Paul never got over the amazing grace that inexplicably found a wretch like him.

This is why I hesitate to opine how we humans can pronounce on such matters.

I prefer to invite people in to share the feast and the good news and join them on our knees in hope and gratitude.

"The real zone of battle ... involves the hundreds of thousands of marriages undermined by ridiculously easy divorce, the millions of children hurt by those divorces and the increasing multitudes of homes where the parents, single or in couples, have never been married at all and never will be."(www.spectator.co.uk/features/7714553/the-gay-marriage-trap/)

Add declining birth rates and abortion to the above list of family ills.

Read the article and understand the wider game of Cameron. He is forcing socially conservative Christians to appear as bigoted, homophobes in the face of trendy, modern *liberally* minded people.

Here’s funny. This state endorsement of buggery is at odds with the law as it stands, if the Inspector is correct. In as much as the act of buggery between a man and a woman remains a criminal offence. No doubt queer types will pick up on this. Hopefully they will demand ‘equality’ so that their goings-on are considered equally....

Ah but if you were a Calvinist or a "born againer" you would understand!

The thief on the Cross is a wonderful demonstration of Christ's redeeming love. The thief was speaking words of comfort to Jesus in the midst of their suffering. Did he know Jesus was the Christ and accept Him in His heart? Unlikely.

What disappointed me about the debate today was the number of MP's speaking who claimed to be Christian but were emphatic in their support of the bill.The supporters generally used emotive language that could make one feel guilty at opposing the bill if it was not for the faith inside one that confirms the truth.

I completely agree with you - 100%. Let them label us *bigots* and old fashioned *homophobes*. Who cares? However, it is wise to understand the game that is being played out and the cynicism of Cameron.

We must stand by our faith and represent the Christian message. Let Cameron attempt to *modernise* the Conservative Party at the cost of social conservatives and virtue. I've left and others should follow too. At least 50% of his own Parliamentary Party voted against his homosexual *marriage* bill.

Brother Ivo @ 16:26, thank you for your reply: When people are in sacred space they can find themselves open to the God of surprises who makes himself known and draws them closer to Him.This indeed makes sense, and I have loved churches where an aura of the sacred prevails. Indeed, I have a rough little cross made from old seats at Wakefield Cathedral; it carries some of that feeling with it.

And if, instead, you refer to less material space ... one tries to retain awareness of the Omnipresence.

As for the cleric in question -- we are mutually incommunicative. His gift for meconnaissance is something to behold. Ah well, we Christians are an imperfect lot.

___________PS: Not keen on female collectives. Said goodbye to the convent at 11 yrs. old. On the other sisterhood: uh uh (no).

There are clearly parallels between what is happening in our Society today and the Roman World at the time Paul wrote his letter' To the Romans'.

There are reasons why homosexuals not only want acceptance of their lifestyles but aggressively want to force acceptance of their lifestyles onto all and sundry.

The reason.....'God gave them over'.This is not only practising homosexuals but those who are in agreement with their lifestyles.'God gave them over.'Much of the Church is in a state of apostasy.Protestant Churches in the UK are ordaining Homosexuals and are in acceptance of homosexual lifestyles, in this respect the Church has failed in its mission and has become irrelevant in the purposes of God.

The 'Times of the Gentiles' must be coming to an end and all that will be left is Judgement.

The parallels between our society and the Roman one at the time of Paul are too clear to be ignored.

Sadly the present crop of parliamentarians simply do not understand the most important principle of English Law. An Act or Bill does not necessarily mean what they intended it to mean. It is a function of the Courts of Law to 'interpret' legislation to determine what it really means which is increasingly not what those who drafted it thought they meant.

Brther Ivo is right. The Human Rights Act will be used to circumvent the supposedly "caste iron" safeguards and to extend this new Bill, when it becomes law, to include many things those now supposedly carefully drafting and considering it, did not intend. You may be certain that the utterly unprincipled MPs of the Left will drive this through the House no matter the opposition from their constituents, simply because it is, in their eyes, another useful weapon for undermining everything British and especially anything and everything to do with faith or religion.

The UK Conservative Government (Central Left Party) instigated a vote to define “Marriage” as the love between same-sex couplings.

No respect for the natual laws or social laws. The society will perish.

Marriage was a trial you earned: Headlong in lust, falling out of like, enduring into respect and affection, finding love by pealing away the vanities and the next generation is cast forth like pollen.

Now the vanity is the Person; for whatever your insanity-of-identity, it will become protected and preferred. A Hate Crime to point out the fraud.

Brothers and sisters, fathers and sons etc. will one day chant to enter this house. There is no morality. Man-Boy love, hidden, will surface.

The most corrupt parliament England has ever seen.

Gays will proudly flaunt their ‘marriage’, and the heterosexual masses will not, simply having no belief in it. Their children will become bought and sold from the womb to complete someone’s sense of a ‘happy family’. The next generation cast forth like products.

If humankind is 50% animal and 50% psycho-sociological, then that 50% has a great affect on childhood and the undeveloped mind. Lesbians raise children to be lesbians. What you hate passesses into infants as fast as you can say Islam. And when you react they call you having an x-phobia.

A common purpose of destroying any remaining soul. People will end up acting like rats.

This wasteland will be conquered. Communism will centralize power into the two hands of another Mohammad/Stalin/Pol Pot. And hell will follow once again.

Traitors.

People will no longer marry with good conscience.

They will leave the UK to get married in a country where marriage is valued as between only one man and one woman, and will hold that certificate up as real.

As you have spotted "human rights" are by their nature infinitely extensible, requiring more and more state intrusion into all corners of life. "Les droits de l'homme" arise from that unfortunate episode, the French revolution to which, one would have thought, all Tories at least must be opposed. Such "rights" are the enemies of civil rights within a limited form of government. Vaclav Klaus, probably the last libertarian to hold a significant office in Central Europe, pointed this out in his lecture to the Mont Pelerin society.

Combine this doctrine with the tenets of Environmentalism and you have the all-embracing (!) doctrine for a complete totalitarian system of world government,

Neither will the militant homosexual lobby stop at this point. Some groups are stepping up their long-established demands for reducing or abolishing the age of consent for sex with children. That too is part of "equal love". In her time with the National Council for Civil Liberties, Harriet Harman supported this. An organisation called PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) was an affiliate member. These sort of people have not gone away.

Mr Cameron could have stopped Harman's monstrous "equalities" Act in the wash-up at the end of the last Parliament - but he didn't.

To find the reason, look on www.eurerendum.com and you will find that the legislation is mandated by the Council of Europe. Cameron is its marionette.

Having read many of the above submissions, I would point out that their is an essential ingredient missing from the way of salvation. It has been omitted from many of our Churches for aeons, & I believe it has a strong bearing on the present situation. REPENTANCE! - recognising one's sinful state, agreeing with God that you deserve to be judged, then turning away from sins & accepting the death of Christ in full payment for them.Only then can one benefit from God's Outrageous Love, grace & mercy. Even the thief on the Cross beside Jesus did this, while the other thief mocked & cursed.

I would also point out that the Conservatives were almost equally divided on the vote, it was the opposition that swung the balance.

So many questions can be raised by the short passage in Luke concerning the Good Thief. These will never be answered but the message of hope in Christ's love shines clearly.

"Lord Jesus, help us to be merciful as You are merciful. Let us see that all are Your children and remember that we are not to judge.

When we look on one such as the Good Thief, let us see an opportunity to offer hope and salvation. Let us witness the good news of salvation to the sinner and never judge anyone as unworthy or hopeless.

Just as the Good Thief repented at the last moments of his life on earth, let us see that this is great hope for all and grant that we never grow weary in our efforts to bring the light of salvation to all.

Amen."

One wonders why there has there never been a novel or film about this mysterious and uplifting aspect of Christ's Passion?

"One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”" (Luke 23:39-43; my emphases)

We have acknowledgement of the Sovereignty of God, conviction of one's sins, recognition of the sinlessness of Christ, recognition that Christ can save.

Really, when you put it in plain terms: this is a man who is hanging dying on a cross. He sees Jesus beside him, hanging dying on a cross.

He still confesses Him as Lord - and he believes that Jesus will soon come into His Kingdom. He asks Jesus to remember him when He comes into glory.

That's something the disciples weren't grasping at that moment. They saw only death and despair.

Scripture speaks of the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), and it speaks of living water that wells up within (John 7:38).

I would suggest to those who ask whether the penitent thief was baptised or not, that you see his baptism there on the cross in the great river of living water that wells within him as he recognises his Saviour.

So when we say "the penitent thief wasn't baptised" - we've missed the point of baptism - and in fact, we've missed the point of Paul's teaching about baptism.

Baptism of the water is a sign of God's Salvation, not a cause of it (cf. Romans 4:9-12). We have to be baptised in both water and spirit to be saved (John 3:5) - the penitent thief's baptism on the cross was, I suggest, both.

That's not to dismiss the importance of immersive baptism - where we possess the opportunity to do so, it is preferable that we do it as an outward sign of our salvation in Christ.

It's a little like Maximilian Kolbe, who fed on the Body and Blood of Christ in the cell where he and his fellow convicts were being starved to death.

Is anyone querying whether the Penitent Thief was baptised and the theological implications of this?

God is Sovereign. The Catholic Church teaches that in cases where there is no baptism of water, there may be a baptism of desire. This can occur in situations where there is no opportunity for baptism.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

I don't interpret the Gospel of Luke quite so definitively as you do.

I think we can conclude the Good Thief was moved by grace to respond to the suffering Jesus who, unlike him and the other thief, was unjustly suffering. He expressed acceptance he was condemned to death justly, according to the Roman law, and was aware of Almighty God.

It is not clear he saw Jesus as the Christ, accepted His sacrifice atoned for his own sins and that He offered life everlasting to those that accepted Him as their saviour.

We do have an insight into a loving and sympathetic response to Jesus on the Cross from a man who was also near death but thinking of another.

The Way of the Dodo, 'The baptism of desire" seems like a pragmatic response to a practical problem, namely a situation so grave and desperate that there is no time for, or availability of symbolic water, but the sinner's heart, soul, repents and craves the salvation of God, through Jesus, and the end result is the same. He repents and is forgiven and accepted by God. Excellent approach, and not that dissimilar to the " born again" concept really, just expressed differently, in my opinion. Thank you for that Dodo.

"It is not clear he saw Jesus as the Christ, accepted His sacrifice atoned for his own sins and that He offered life everlasting to those that accepted Him as their saviour."

Forgive me Dodo, but do you regard it as normal to say to a man condemned and hanging on a torture device that will lead to his certain, agonising, and shameful death - "remember me when you come into your Kingdom"?

If you mean that he probably did not grasp the full detail of theology or Christology - then yes, I'm with you there. I think it highly unlikely that the penitent thief was motivated by intellectual prescience. On the other hand, just as Peter did not "know" Jesus, but had knowledge of Jesus revealed to him, so the penitent thief, even as he hung dying, had Christ the Saviour King revealed to him.

I've never understood Paul as saying anything about needing to understand God - we receive God by Grace and by the power of the Holy Spirit. We try to understand him afterward.

That's one interpretation of those words of the thief, certainly. There is another, more human explanation. True, they came soon after Jesus' wonderful prayer to His Father to "Forgive". We can agree however, that the thief was moved by the Grace of God.

"the vilest offender, who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives".

I think of the thief on the Cross, whenever this hymn is sung. And how pertinent for today. Good for chaps like Dodo who can think of these with an owl like knowledge. But for the rest of us, stained glass, parables and simple teachings will do.

I'd go further in the redeeming Love of Our Lord, through Jesus Christ.

" ... the vilest offender, who truly repents of his past, though he may not know the Gospel through no fault of his own, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives". Catholic teaching calls this Baptism of Desire'

Add to this that it is God who, in His Mercy, sends freely His Grace for us to respond to, providing sufficient assistance to us to put our pasts behind, and we begin to appreciate just how incomprehensible He is.

Ill repost the earlier prayer I placed on here:

"Lord Jesus, help us to be merciful as You are merciful. Let us see that all are Your children and remember that we are not to judge.

When we look on one such as the Good Thief, let us see an opportunity to offer hope and salvation. Let us witness the good news of salvation to the sinner and never judge anyone as unworthy or hopeless.

Just as the Good Thief repented at the last moments of his life on earth, let us see that this is great hope for all and grant that we never grow weary in our efforts to bring the light of salvation to all.

Johns baptism(water baptism) was one of repentance which in itself does not save.

Jesus is the baptiser in the Holy Spirit which is the regeneration of the spirit(Life breathed into a dead human spirit by the Holy Spirit.

The thief on the cross declared himself 'a sinner'and saw his need for a Saviour (all that we necessary)No need for all the 'paraphernalia ' of religion'.Jesus looked into the heart of this man and declared him saved.

Bless you but you are so wrong in this. And you accuse Catholics of imposing rules and regulation.

You have super imposed your own narrow theological construction on the revelation of the Good Thief. This is not guidance to you from the Holy Spirit. It is the teachings of the version of Christianity you choose to follow.

You seek to limit God's saving Grace in this way? To deny salvation to those who have never heard His word, or had the opportunity to develop- in their faith?

Another unnecessary swipe at the Catholic Church based on ignorance of its teachings.

What you're preaching is spiritual anarchy. Jesus established a Church for believers and St Paul tells us the Holy Spirit distributes His gifts unevenly. Jesus also established a structure of authority to guide the development of Christianity. The 'reformers' not only attacked the corrupt practices of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, they attacked its divinely guided doctrine and in so doing had to bring down the structure.

The resulting fragmentation of Christianity is the result of this 500 year old revolt.

Here we are talking about people outside of the Church who do not know the Gospel or who know it poorly, including those not baptised by water.

There's a whole theological discussion surrounding the nature of Christ's promise to the Good Thief and the immediacy of his redemption. Its centres on when Christ entered Paradise and the nature of His time in Hades. You should research this with a mind open to the Holy Spirit.

Baptism by water is a teaching of the Catholic Church. It releases us from the bondage of original sin. Thereafter, we are open, through the Church, to the development of our faith.

Dodo You really should study Church history (not just the Catholic version)

The' split' in the church happened long before the Reformation it was when the Roman Pope wanted total authority and attempted to dominate the rest of the church(much as today.... nothing changes it seems)So the Roman Pope excommunicated the Eastern orthodox Pope (who would not submit to the rule of Rome) who did like- wise.Apostolic succession(if it ever existed ended there)These Popes called each other 'heretics' the only time when I would agree with both Popes(Peters chair must have had a pretty broad seat to accommodate two (or even more Popes?)

The Great Schism'The Great Schism, also known as the East-West Schism, was the event that divided "Chalcedonian" Christianity into Western (Roman) Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.^[1]^ Though normally dated to 1054, when Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other, the East-West Schism was actually the result of an extended period of estrangement between the two bodies of churches. The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over papal authority -- the Roman Pope claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs, while the four eastern patriarchs claimed that the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome was only honorary, and thus he had authority only over Western Christians -- and over the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. There were other, less significant catalysts for the Schism, including variance over liturgical practices and conflicting claims of jurisdiction.'Source(www.theopedia.com/Great_Schism)

Dodo,Water baptism does NOT cleanse us from sin.Water baptism is identification with the death and resurrection of Christ.Water baptism is only an outward symbol of what should be an 'inner reality' if the inner reality has not occurred then water baptism is meaningless. It is the Blood of Jesus which cleanses us from all sin.....“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD” (Revelation 1:5).

And again in 1st John 1:7 we read:

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKETH AN ATONEMENT FOR THE SOUL.” —Leviticus 17:11Colossians 1:14, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”

John 1:29, “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

(Dodo I am not ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church but I am in total disagreement with them because they are not based of the Word of God)

Isn't it possible that the Good Thief, by grace, looked on Christ dying and, moved by love, simply acknowledged it was not in keeping with Almighty God's intention? What an absurd world that crucifies an innocent, loving person. What a bad life he had led in comparison to deserve such a death.

Could his words not have been said to comfort a man about to die? He thought of another in his own dying moment whereas the other thief died cursing life. Did he necessarily had to have had a revelation that Jesus was the Christ? Remember, all three who died on the Cross that day were to meet later in Sheol.

Oddly enough, I've always regarded the unpenitent thief as the one acting in a human way. It is he after all who, in his own pain and agony, prefers to lash out at Jesus to satisfy his own need to have everyone exist on his own moral plane. By sneering at Christ, there is no hope, no order, no purpose - only a cosmic "sod's law" that renders him caught and executed, but certainly no sense that he is punished justly. The whole situation is utterly unfair - unfair that he was caught.

Heaven and Hell are either side of Christ on the Cross: on the one hand, the man who clings to himself but refuses to face up to what he is, and so has nothing; on the other is a man who has discovered justice, hopes for mercy, and finds a King and His Kingdom.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)